Literature Review - Comfort Zone: Model or Metaphor?

The Comfort Zone Model (Luckner & Nadler, 1997) is based on the notion that when a person is placed in a challenging or stressful situation, they will respond accordingly and rise to overcome their hesitation or fear. It is proposed that expanding the comfort zone leads to participants experiencing personal growth. In other words, people need to be nudged out of their comfy nest in order to realise that they can ‘fly.’ 

According to Brown (2008) this model has built upon theories of cognitive development (Piaget, 1977) and cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) rather than being underpinned by an educational theory on ‘comfort zones.’ Although frequently mentioned in adventure contexts, Brown (2008) presents a well-researched argument in this paper that stretching ones comfort zone may not maximise learning. In fact, he mentions that the stress involved may even produce a negative outcome. Both Piaget (1977) and Festinger’s (1957) theories also support this proposal, which suggests that The Comfort Zone Model may not be based upon these theories.

However, the model does appear to have similarities to Martin and Priest’s (1986) Adventure Paradigm Theory, which explains participants’ behaviour based on the interaction of risk and competence. If these variables are balanced, then a condition of peak adventure will occur, resulting in positive benefits for the participant. Alternatively, if an experience falls into the other conditions, then learning may be negatively impacted. Having said this, Martin and Priest (1986) suggest that learning can take place in all conditions up to and including misadventure.

The Adventure Paradigm, Martin and Priest (1986).

The key to application of both The Comfort Zone Model and The Adventure Paradigm lies with the perceived risk of the individual. Likewise, the models assume that the ‘adventure professional’ is capable of efficiently assessing the level of perceived risk to ensure optimal conditions for learning. It cannot be a ‘one size fits all’ approach. In pushing an individual out of their comfort zone in an adventure experience, we are assuming that they will learn. However, Davis-Berman and Berman (2002) suggest that learning is also able to take place in a safe and secure environment.

The issue of transfer is another aspect that Brown (2008) has considered. Surely behaviour in an adventurous context may be a poor predictor of behaviour in a normal day-to-day routine? Perhaps this is where a follow up session to equip individuals with necessary transfer skills would be beneficial after a ‘life-changing adventure.'

With the above in mind, The Comfort Zone Model should be used as a framework for how learning could potentially take place, rather than a rationale for the implementation of learning. It is important for facilitators to keep in mind that perceived risk varies from person to person and therefore, individual comfort zones will vary between individuals and activities.

References 

Brown, M. (2008). Comfort Zone: Model or Metaphor? Australian Journal of Outdoor Education. 12, 3-12.

Davis-Berman, J., & Berman, D. (2002). Risk and Anxiety in Adventure Programming. Journal of Experiential Education. 25, 305-310.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. 2^nd ed. USA: Row, Peterson & Company. 1-291.

Luckner, J. & Nadler, R. (1997). Processing the Experience: Strategies to Enhance and Generalise Learning. Kendall Publishing Company.

Martin, P. & Priest, S. (1986). Understanding the Adventure Experience. Journal of Adventure Education. 3, 18-21.

Piaget, J. (1977). The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures. USA: Viking Press. 1-213.